SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2021

2020004649 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/301,638 10/03/2016 Mikhail Roshchin ROSHCHIN 7724
20151 7590 03/02/2021
HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC
HENRY M FEIEREISEN
35 WEST 35TH STREET
SUITE 900
NEW YORK, NY 10001
EXAMINER
GEMIGNANI, ANTHONY G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
INFO@FEIEREISENLLC.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte MIKHAIL ROSHCHIN and ALEXANDER STORL1
_____________

Appeal 2020-004649
Application 15/301,6382
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN A. EVANS, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 11–37. Appeal Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft is the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2; see Oral Hearing transcript.
2 An Oral Hearing was held, by teleconference, February 11, 2021. A
transcript will be made of Record in due course.
Appeal 2020-004649
Application 15/301,638

2

INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a method for
automatically processing a number of protocol log files of differing types of
an automation system of a technical facility. See Abstract; Claim 11.
Claims 11, 19, and 27 are independent. Illustrative Claim 11, is reproduced
below with some formatting added.
11. A method for automatically processing a number of
generated log files of different types of an automation system in
a technical plant, comprising:
monitoring and controlling the technical plant with the
automation system,
identifying, with agent-based software implemented in a
component of the automation system, a number of relevant log
files of different types from the number of generated log files of
the automation system based on at least one log parameter,
wherein the relevant log files comprise at least one of measured
signals and status signals from individual components of the
technical plant;
transforming, with the agent-based software, the
identified relevant log files of different types into relevant
standardized log flies of a same type;
processing and analyzing, with the agent-based software,
data sets of the relevant standardized log files of the same type;
and outputting, with the agent-based software, the data sets of
the relevant standardized log flies in order to monitor and
control with the automation system the individual components
of the technical plant.
Appeal 2020-004649
Application 15/301,638

3

PRIOR ART
Name3 Reference Date
Beavers US 2003/0167406 A1 Sept. 4, 2003
Berg US 2006/0184529 A1 Aug. 17, 2006
REJECTIONS4 AT ISSUE5
1. Claims 28 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Final Act. 4–5.
2. Claims 11, 13–17, 19, 21–25 and 27–37 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Beavers. Final Act. 5–13.
3. Claims 12, 18, 20 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
obvious over Beavers and Berg. Final Act. 14–15.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 11–37 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We provide the following
explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings
primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellant’s arguments as they are
presented in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief.

3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being
examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act 2.
5 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed
September 3, 2019, corrected October 3, 2019, the Final Office Action
(“Final Act.”) mailed February 7, 2019, the Examiner’s Answer mailed
January 29, 2020, and the Specification (“Spec.”) filed October 3, 2016.
Appeal 2020-004649
Application 15/301,638

4

CLAIMS 28 AND 33: INDEFINITENESS.
The Examiner finds Claims 28 and 33 “recite in part, preventing
damage to or failure of . . . without specifying how damage or failure is
prevented such as to distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention.”
Final Act. 5 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant does not respond to this ground of rejection. See Appeal
Br. 2; Ans. 3. We therefore summarily affirm this rejection. See MPEP
§ 1205.02 (9th ed. March 2014) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the
examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief, that ground of rejection
will be summarily sustained by the Board.”). The failure to appeal an issue
is a forfeiture under Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (“If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular
issue—or, more broadly, on a particular rejection—the Board will not, as a
general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection”).
Claims 11, 13–17, 19, 21–25 and 27–37: Anticipation by Beavers.
Controlling the technical plant.
Independent Claim 11 recites, inter alia: “controlling the technical
plant with the automation system.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claim App.). Appellant
contends Beavers fails to disclose this feature. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant
argues the word “control” appears in Beavers only twice. Id. (citing
Beavers, ¶ 53) (“The rule processor can be considered to be an intelligent
filter in that it controls the output of the knowledge-containing and translated
event.”) (and citing Beavers, ¶ 183) (“the rules can be written to further
control the output of the knowledge containing common format events so
that the alert indications are not overwhelming and provide information that
Appeal 2020-004649
Application 15/301,638

5

is easily assimilated by the person or system assigned to monitor the
enterprise.”). Appellant argues “the person or system is described as being
assigned to monitor the enterprise, [but] the person or system are in no way
described as controlling a technical plant.” Id.
The Examiner finds Beavers discloses:
the inventive method and system has utility for any enterprise
that has infrastructure elements and devices that receive and send
information, wherein monitoring of the information would be
valuable for running the enterprise. For example, the enterprise
could be a business that operates a number of pieces of
machinery and the machinery is monitored for performance. The
alerts from this machinery could be processed just as the security
alerts described above so that the automated manager monitoring
the machinery is not overwhelmed with useless information.
Ans. 4 (quoting Beavers, ¶ 185) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds
“monitoring of the information would be valuable for running the
enterprise,” as disclosed by Beavers, fairly discloses “monitoring and
controlling.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
Beavers discloses: “[a]nother example would be a business that
operates vehicles, and vehicle locations are monitored.” Beavers, ¶ 185
(cited by the Examiner). We find no teaching or suggestion in Beavers that
the business that operates and monitors vehicle locations actually drives (i.e.,
“controls”), e.g., the individual taxis or freight trucks, from a central
location.
Because we find the Examiner has failed to show the prior art teaches
at least one limitation, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 11, 13–
17, 19, 21–25 and 27–37 as anticipated by Beavers.
Appeal 2020-004649
Application 15/301,638

6

CLAIMS 12, 18, 20 AND 26: OBVIOUSNESS OVER BEAVERS AND BERG.
Appellant does not separately argue these dependent claims. See
Appeal Br. 6 (“Claims 12–18, 20–26 and 28–37 stand and fall with claims
11 and 19, respectively.”).
The Examiner does not apply Berg to teach the limitations discussed
above. See Ans. 8.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
28, 33 112(b) Indefiniteness 28, 33
11, 13–17,
19, 21–25,
27–37
102(a)(1) Beavers 11, 13–17,
19, 21–25,
27–37
12, 18, 20,
26
103 Beavers, Berg 12, 18, 20,
26
Overall
Outcome
28, 33 11–27, 29–
32, 34–37

AFFIRMED IN PART